Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Has there ever been a war where everything, every mission, went exactly according to plan?
For one side, maybe…
Under Bush we've seen job growth,wage growth, lower taxes FOR ALL and all the while there were two wars and the worst natural disaster in US history.
With tongue planted firmly in my cheek, I'd like to point out one thing about the news of the last couple of days… that is, the unemployment rate is up, and is the highest since, let's see…. oh yeah, the first term of the Clinton administration. If I read between the lines of editorial comment, that means that it's almost as bad as it was under President Clinton and his democrat controlled Congress.Also, there's a news story out today, that President Bush's popularity rating is the lowest ever for a sitting President… even lower than Nixon's just prior to his resignation. The story didn't mention Congress' approval rating, but last I heard it was about 10 points lower than the President's. But that's not the kind of news that sells advertising in the newspaper or on the network news shows.
Food for thought — if, by chance, you have any investments that you are considering selling in the next 18 months or so (if you've been prudent and have actually made a profit on some), I'd advise that you sell before Dec 31st. Any changes made to the tax plan in 2009 will most likely be retro-active to 1 Jan 09 — meaning long term capital gains will most likely jump from 15% if you sell in 08 to 25% if you sell in 09.Just something to think about.
“World War II Historyfor October 221942 – The Allies met to discuss Operation Torch. Operation Torch was to be the first Allied amphibious landing of World War II.”Hmmm…. 7 August 1942 ring any bells?
While I have not read Grossman's book – I skimmed it when it came out and decided to leave it on the bookshelf – I think that any sweeping statement that 98% of people will react a certain way is flawed. Personal experiences are many, and people's motivations are varied. 98% of people are probably reluctant to kill in cold blood — that's humanity. But given certain circumstances and motivations, people's desire or reluctance to kill will no doubt change… especially in war. Once your unit has sustained casualties I would postulate that anger, hatred, and revenge will motivate people to be much more willing to pull the trigger – as will distance from the target. Would it be fair to include artillerymen in his argument? Would 98% of gun crews be reluctant to kill if the target is 15 klicks away? How about a pilot dropping ordnance from 20,000 feet? Or the weapons folks from an FFG launching a missile at a target 50 miles away? Does it change when the range of engagement is only a few feet? Obviously the emotional trauma suffered is different when the victim's (enemy's) blood is literally on your boots.The main reason I discounted the book when it came out was his lack of combat experience. Not that that disqualifies anyone from commenting on killing, but someone who has never been in combat will have certain credibility issues when he is talking to (or writing to) those who have been.Just my two cents – and since I didn't read the book my opinion may be worth less than that.
Biased or not, I'd rather have one who was passionate (and accurate) about the subject rather than just plowing through. Passion can be contagious.
APUS owns several historic buildings in Charles Town. Makes you wonder if any of the other houses in the area have live rounds burried in the yards or walls!
I read Grant's memoirs about 20 years ago as a lieutenant in the Marines. That year, I was on a Civil War memoir kick and read Grant's, Sherman's, Longstreet's, Porter Alexander's, Hood's, and Early's. Reading memoirs, especially from this period – but from every other period as well – needs to be done with an eye for and understanding of the bias of the writer. This is particularly true among the Southern writers, who sought to justify their actions. I read the Southern memoirs, as much a possible, not cover to cover, but campaign by campaign — I'd read a campaign in Longstreet, and follow it up with the same campaign in Alexander, etc.Grant's memoirs, while not completely devoid of this bias, were by and large frank and straight forward. I thought at the time, and still do, that there is much to learn from this book, and highly recommend it.
You know, I found this discussion very interesting, but reading some of the longer posts, I got bored and quit reading… ;D
Good rules. I especially like #7, too many of my professors have been English teachers in disguise, they grade on grammar and not strength of idea or evidence.
Strength of idea and evidence is key, but bad grammar and spelling take away from your argument and creditibility. I read number seven as relating more to prose and style — not grammatical correctness. To communicate your research and position, you have to have a receptive audience and credibility. In my opinion, professors should grade on strength of research, ideas, AND grammar.
I've used this book in a couple of courses I've taken at AMU. As mentioned, it is an interesting resource for broader study of WWII and Hitler, but as a sole source it may not be the best choice. I've used it to complement Weinberg's A World At Arms
I have to admit, when it comes to books (and this is a movie thread), I'm a big Louis Lamour fan. I think people would be surprised how many good westerns (movies) were from Louis Lamour books. From Hondo in 1953 to the more recent made for TV Tom Selleck and Sam Elliot westerns Crossfire Trail and Conagher… and of course The Shadow Riders and the Sacketts.
Unforgiven was one of my favorites.Does The Outlaw Josey Wales count as a western? How about Lonsome Dove?For older movies: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, Hondo, The Man from Snowy River, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Magnificent Seven… and just for fun Red Sun with Charles Bronson and Toshiro Minfune
